sourmìlk wrote:I didn't mean "we should work the maximize safety at the expense of everything else." Obviously there are practical limitations on how safe a military can be, I recognize that. I don't see why reducing rape would exceed those limitations.

No, you don't see why actively and legally excluding women from spheres of influence and power would exceed those limitations. Say what you mean, not what sounds 'nicer'.

sourmilk wrote:And I think I explained why we would hypothetically stop them: to not enable risky decision making. I'm not saying we should ban people from making risky decisions, I'm saying that we should refuse to enable them to. It's the difference between, for example, legalizing heroin use and handing it out on the taxpayer's dime.

Honestly, I don't like throwing around the term 'misogyny' frivolously, but I'm tempted to do so whenever this subject comes up--because I really don't see what else to call a mindset that involves excluding women from a profession on the basis that "it's for their own good". Beyond "I hate women", I can't think of a sentiment more vilely anti-woman than "It's for their own good".

I never once expressed that sentiment. I don't understand why, although I constantly explain that this isn't the case, you all keep insisting that the reason I would want to exclude women from joining combat units is because "it's for their own good." Also, for an argument to progress, you have to assume that the person you're debating is saying what he means.

Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

sourmìlk wrote:Those seem like things making separate practically equivalent to unequal, not inherently unequal. But that's a nitpick. However, a situation in which one group is raped and the other isn't isn't particularly equal either. I'd rather go with the safer inequality.

I'm not talking about the equality of outcome; I'm talking about the equality of government treatment that the government has a duty to uphold.

Safety is not our top priority when it comes to the military. The list goes something like this:

-Constitutionality (the one we're talking about)-Effectiveness-Safety-Cost

Reducing rape in the military makes the military safer, but doing that in a way that hurts the military's effectiveness (missing out on talented servicewomen) and Constitutionality (denying women equal treatment by the government), as banning all women from combat would, is a poor decision that does not match our priorities.

Why would having a gender-segregated military make it less effective? Also, I don't think those priorities are absolute: there is a certain amount of safety that could outweigh a much smaller amount of effectiveness, for example.

Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

IANAL, but I'm pretty sure seperate-but-equal services for men and women are legal, the most obvious example being gender-segregated locker rooms. You can still make the case that separate military units would be inherently inequal (for instance, the male-only units would probably be much older and therefore more prestigous), but segregated services can still theoretically be equitable and therefore constitutional.

sourmìlk wrote:Why would having a gender-segregated military make it less effective? Also, I don't think those priorities are absolute: there is a certain amount of safety that could outweigh a much smaller amount of effectiveness, for example.

Sure. But even without having numbers on the effectiveness, you said an increase from 25% to 30% in the risk of rape wasn't sufficient safety to outweigh other concerns.

Since when have we, civilians and military leaders, been afraid of setting discipline to enforce a goal? The military ANSWERS and SERVES us, not the other way around. Military policy has never been set up to be a democracy; and if the mandate from the citizenship is to integrate women without in-house retaliation, then they better follow the fucking orders or face military court and see themselves thrown the Hell out of the military.

We don't cater to stupidity and pigheadedness. If you can't follow orders and go rogue at any chance you get, you don't belong in the military. Women will be integrated, the citizens demand that they be treated ust like any man, and if you have a problem, drop the fuck out. We convince people to imperil their lives and operate under horrible living conditions to fight for the interests of plutocrats, for fuck's sake. They can be similarly trained to assimilate qualified women into their midst.

I just don't get this growing notion that the military gets to do what it wants and desires. They are not an independent body. We pay them to perform a task however we want it done. They signed that contract giving their lives over to the government (by extension the people), so there should be no surprise with the fact that being a public servant involves bowing to public demands.

Yes, in reality, the data are (depressingly) too similar between women in general and women in the military. I'd be curious to see how the data change when using only women eligible for the military as a baseline, but without that, I'm afraid that difference between the percentage of women raped in general and 30 fucking percent is nearly within margins of error

Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

sourmìlk wrote:Yes, in reality, the data are (depressingly) too similar between women in general and women in the military. I'd be curious to see how the data change when using only women eligible for the military as a baseline, but without that, I'm afraid that difference between the percentage of women raped in general and 30 fucking percent is nearly within margins of error

These statistics have been bugging me for a couple of days, so let's take a closer look.

If 30% of women in the military are raped, then 70% are never raped in their military careers. Let's assume that the average career length of a woman in the military is 4 years. Then x^4=0.7, or x=0.915, where x is the probability of not being raped in a given year. So the probability of a woman being raped in the military in a given year is about 8.5%.

The commonly cited statistic for American women is that 1 in 4 will be raped in their lifetimes. Actually, this includes attempted rapes, the study* was done in 1982, and the phrasing was closer to 'have been raped in their lifetimes'. One more recent study (n=8000) says 14.8% have been raped in their lifetime (17.6% if you include attempted rape). Counting only completed rapes, and assuming the average age to be 35, we get x^35=0.852, x=0.995, so the probability of an American woman being raped in a given year is about 0.5%. (The same study states that 0.3% of women surveyed were raped in the previous 12 months, so pretty close.)

Even if we accept the more common, allegedly inflated, estimate of 25% (including attempted and completed), we get x^35=0.75, x=0.992, and the probability for an American woman being raped in a given year is about 0.8%.

tl/dr: The chances of an American woman being raped in a given year increase by a factor between 10 and 17 if she is in the military.

I'm not sure where the original number of 30% comes from, but in 2008, the reported amount was 3000 out of 1.4 million serving members. The belief is that this is about 10-20% of the actual cases, so on the high end, 30k out of 1.4 million, or about 2.1% overall. But of course, that's men and women. It's estimated that just over half of incidents have male victims, so 15k female victims. Women make up about 15% of the military, so about 210k. 7.1% per year! That matches pretty well with induction's calculations.

Note that in the general population, the number is less than 1% per year (again, this is estimated total, not just reported, which is more like 0.06%)

On the other hand, 1% of males are raped in the military per year. And in the general population its about 0.1%. So rape is much more common in the military for both men and women, on the order of 10 times more likely.

addams wrote:This forum has some very well educated people typing away in loops with Sourmilk. He is a lucky Sourmilk.

Malice wrote:Basic training is able to get people over their instinctual fear of death, I'm guessing it can equalize men and women if there really are differences.

No it doesn't, hence PTSD. I agree that training will most likely be able to fix the problems that arise. But, that will happen by acknowledging the problems and fixing them. Not, by ignoring them and chanting 'equality' until things get better.

Malice wrote:

nitePhyyre wrote:Where do you two get off valuing one person's job preference over another person's LIFE? Seriously, What. The. Fuck?

Respecting other people means helping them make informed but independent choices. If I want to choose to be a coal miner, astronaut, or soldier, it's my goddamn choice no matter how dangerous the job. It's your responsibility to reduce the danger as much as possible without stepping on my freedoms, while also keeping me informed as to the danger.

In other words, we're not valuing one person's job preference over another person's life; we're respecting one person's valuing their own job preference over the risk to their life.

Here's an idea: READ. THE FUCKING. THREAD. Others and myself have been over this. Let me try and break it down into simply words and small sentences. The military fights in squads. In units. Wait, is 'military' too complex? The 'army people' fight in 'groups'. If, for any reason, you endanger the group more than you help it, you should not be in that group.

It is up to the people who are trained to figure out if you will help or hurt the group to decide if you belong in the group. The people who are trained to make this type of decision, who have experience making this type of decision, the people whose JOB it is to make these decisions.

Imagine for a moment: You are hiding in a bush with your squad mates. An enemy battalion is walking by. You sneeze. Congratulations! Because you decided that your allergies weren't a big deal to you and you think that they are an acceptable danger to you, ten other people who never got to make those choices about your allergies are dead. The military does not, cannot, function like that.

(Yeah, allergies aren't the greatest example. But I was going through a sneezing fit as I typed, So it fit.)

Malice wrote:

nitePhyyre wrote:Hypothetically: Women walking down a dark path have a 90% chance of being raped.Sourmilk: That's horrible, we should do something about it. How about we stop women, but not men, from walking on these unlit paths until we retrofit them with lights.Ulc: You sexist bastard! Don't you see how that leads directly to requiring male escorts and hijabs?

No, I really, really don't.

I bolded my correction; now do you see? If not, why?

Except, the thread is about opening up a new line of work for women in the military. Opening a new path for their chosen career. Not closing down the paths that are currently open to them. You would probably know this if you bothered to READ. THE FUCKING. THREAD.

If the thread title was 'Marine Corps bans women from all service', your change might have a point. But its not, so you don't.

nitePhyyre wrote:

Ulc wrote:We cannot in any ethical way deny women rights that men have, without enforcing a culture where each individual woman's agency are taken away from her, and she's left without the ability to hold a independent agenda - and that's exactly the culture that we call rape-culture, a culture where women are property, and taking the sex you see them "owing you", against their will, is an common act that a lot of people nod at and say "sure, I can understand him" (even if they publicly criticize him). In the short term, denying women the right to enter the military might seem like it's combating rape, but in the long term, it's exactly the kind of rules that directly lead to the base-line rape incident rate being 16-25% (depending on studies and estimates of dark numbers).

You have to be older than 17 to join the marines. Are we enforcing a culture where youth have their agency taken away?You have to be younger than 28 to join the marines. Are we enforcing a culture where people who are older than 30 have their agency taken away?You have to have a high school diploma to join the marines. Are we enforcing a culture where high school dropouts have their agency taken away?You have to be physically fit to join the marines. Are we enforcing a culture where the handicapped have their agency taken away?

Malice wrote:Is there a culture for each of those to enforce?

Is it that you are reading and simply have poor language skills? Ulc was quite clearly talking about macro-culture, not subsets of subcultures.

Malice wrote:Is sex at birth a choice? Is it something that will change over time? Is it a requirement fundamental to the position? Fun fact: the answer to all of those is "no".

Is being crippled at birth a choice? Is being stupid at birth a choice? Are they things that will change over time? Are they fundamental to the position? Fun fact: the answer to all those is "no".

Now let me spell it out, because you are clearly incapable of reading between the lines: If you are claiming that it is unethical to discriminate against minorities, then it is unethical to discriminate against minorities. You don't get to say its OK to place restrictions on this minority but not that minority.

Malice wrote:

nitePhyyre wrote:

Ulc wrote:Rape culture, it exist, we're all part of it.

Correlation does not imply causation. I.e.: Do we rape a lot because making jokes about rape removes the stigma, or do we make jokes about rape because rape happens a lot and humour is a coping method?

Both, actually. Such is the Mobius flow of culture: we influence and are influenced by it.

Indeed. Which is why it is childish, naive, and incorrect to go on a several paragraph rant blaming culture alone.

Malice wrote:Fine, it's the real world. You have to create a one-size-fits-all determination. Is a 5% average increase in rape from "everybody" to "just the military" worth banning women? What's the increase in mortality rate? What's the increase in the rape rate for men in the military? Do you have any basis for comparison here to justify discrimination?

No.I don't know, but they were high enough for the IDF to de-integrate its military. Apparently a 10 fold increase. Yes, the data that's been mentioned a billion fucking time in the thread, which you would know by now if you bothered to read the goram thread. What's wrong with EP?

Malice wrote:

nitePhyyre wrote:"Why should I make their decisions?" Because they are the ones asking me for a job.

The military shouldn't answer to you because you're a civilian, but as a civilian applicants to the military should answer to you? The military is a tool commanded by civilians; anything else is flat-out dangerous. As such it is all our responsibilities to use them wisely and properly, which includes preventing unnecessary discrimination in their hiring practices.

If you personally were hiring people for a non-military job, would it be okay to turn women away solely because they're women? Because it's sure as shit not legal, at least when sex has nothing to do with the job requirements.

The "I" up there is some recruitment officer or commanding officer talking.

You are begging the question.

Malice wrote:

nitePhyyre wrote:Pre-integration, blacks got an education from black schools, whites from white schools. After integration blacks and white got and education from schools. My history knowledge is pretty non-existant on the CRM. How are they vastly better off afterwards? Is it that black schools were of a much lower quality?

Often they were, yes (as it turns out, when you group minorities together, it makes it easier to shit only on their heads). It was also better for society in general--by physically separating people from each other based on skin color, you make them the Other. You know who's more likely to be racist against black people? Somebody who's never met a black person before.

Should have forcefully integrated ghettos while you were at it.

Malice wrote:

nitePhyyre wrote:I think the crux of the issue is exactly what traits should go on that list.

Do you have a logical reason why "sex" should not go on that list? Preferably one that doesn't rely on evolutionary psychology?

Yes. Tons. Here's an idea: READ. THE FUCKING. THREAD.

Malice wrote:

nitePhyyre wrote:

Nordic Einar wrote:It was pretty fuckin' dangerous to be black in the military in the early days post-segregation. It's still pretty dangerous to be queer in the military. Also, being in the military is pretty fuckin' dangerous. This is a ridiculous argument, because the very nature of volunteering to join the military is to volunteer to be at danger.

Exactly! That's why we don't bother to give soldiers body armour.

Oh! So what you're saying is, we should just allow women into combat roles, but issue them chastity belts.

I'm not as rape centric as sourmilk is.

Malice wrote:

nitePhyyre wrote:How about letting them be separate but equal? Have all female units, and all male units. It beats separate and unequal during the transition, no?

Separate is inherently unequal.

Ever seen SDF-1 Macross? Sure its fiction, but they have a seperate but equal military. It worked well. Do you believe all-boy/all-girl schools are unethical?

Malice wrote:In a specific sense, separating all men from all women to protect female victims from male rapists sends the specific message that all men are rapists and all women are victims. Rapists and victims are unequal.

Couldn't it simply send the message that the chain of command doesn't want grunts to fraternize?

The Great Hippo wrote:And if members of the group in question state in clear, unambiguous terms, that they'd rather be treated equally--and take that risk--rather than let you make the decision for them? What then?

It not their risk to take. It is the military's. Once you sign up, your life is theirs.

The Great Hippo wrote:We're talking about people signing up for a job that involves being shot at by people who want to kill you. We are already 'enabling unsafe choices', here. When a woman tells you she wants to serve in the military, what's going to be your response--"Sorry, but the government feels really strongly about letting you make decisions that put you at any sort of risk. Oh, by the way, did you hear about those soldiers of ours that just got blown to fucking pieces yesterday? Man, talk about crazy!"

This is a fundamentally stupid argument. Everyone who has made it should feel ashamed of themselves.

The military exists because it is safer than not having one. The military should only be used when not using it is less safe. We aren't enabling unsafe choices. We are making the best of a bad situation.

Seriously guys, ashamed.

The Great Hippo wrote:This is not rocket surgery. To the contrary: This is simple. We're talking Sesame Street levels of simplicity. Like, to explain it any more simply, I'll need some crayons, construction paper, paste, and a classroom of pre-schoolers. I'd have to build you a goddamn diorama to make this any easier to understand.

There are women who want to serve their country in the same capacity that men do. Let them.

Problem solved.

Yeah, it takes Sesame Street levels of simplicity to claim a problem is solved while ignoring any problems the solution creates.

sourmìlk wrote:I don't really get this argument. Yes the military is unsafe, but why does that mean we should be okay with making it more unsafe? Even in the military, we should work to maximize safety. It's just that, being a military and all, it's never going to be as safe as, say, programming.

Its because it is a horrendously stupid argument. Everything after your question mark? That's what people with more than a hundredth of a brain would say.

The Great Hippo wrote:There are women who want to serve their country in the same capacity that men do. Let them.

The Great Hippo wrote:Then let them serve. Why is this argument even happening? Women want to serve their country. They're aware of these risks. Why are we stopping them?

You keep using that word: SERVE. It is the right one.

From thefreedictionary.com:Serve:1.a. To work for.b. To be a servant to

Last I checked you don't tell the person you are serving how exactly you are to serve them.

Lucrece wrote:I just don't get this growing notion that the military gets to do what it wants and desires. They are not an independent body. We pay them to perform a task however we want it done. They signed that contract giving their lives over to the government (by extension the people), so there should be no surprise with the fact that being a public servant involves bowing to public demands.

That's not entirely true. For the most part, POTUS gives an order to his secretaries. "Go bomb there". The specifics of how that is done is all military. Or, "I want to bomb there, bring me tactical options in an hour." ... "OK, I pick this option." Although some things like gays being banned from the wilitary was done be a motion of congress. For anything they haven't been ordered or barred from, it is their discretion, no?

sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

I've read the thread, thanks. Care to point me at the relevant portions? (If you're talking about the whole "men will drop everything and save women even when that's bad" thing, I remain unconvinced.)

nitePhyyre wrote:

Malice wrote:Basic training is able to get people over their instinctual fear of death, I'm guessing it can equalize men and women if there really are differences.

No it doesn't, hence PTSD. I agree that training will most likely be able to fix the problems that arise. But, that will happen by acknowledging the problems and fixing them. Not, by ignoring them and chanting 'equality' until things get better.

I'm not suggesting ignoring the problems. Really I'm fine with integrating women the way we integrated homosexuals recently: give the military a mandate and a deadline that gives them a period of time in which to accommodate the changes. The military is really, really good at adjusting to new orders while maintaining standards of safety and efficacy. I'm arguing for "You have six months to integrate, go" over "Don't let women serve in combat until you decide they're ready for it, whenever that may be". I am not arguing for "You will integrate tomorrow, let the chips fall where they may", although that outcome is preferable to the "whenever" option.

Several times in this thread I've reiterated my desire that this integration be accompanied by efforts to lower the rape rate and make the military as safe for women as it is for men.

nitePhyyre wrote:It is up to the people who are trained to figure out if you will help or hurt the group to decide if you belong in the group. The people who are trained to make this type of decision, who have experience making this type of decision, the people whose JOB it is to make these decisions.

Imagine for a moment: You are hiding in a bush with your squad mates. An enemy battalion is walking by. You sneeze. Congratulations! Because you decided that your allergies weren't a big deal to you and you think that they are an acceptable danger to you, ten other people who never got to make those choices about your allergies are dead. The military does not, cannot, function like that.

(Yeah, allergies aren't the greatest example. But I was going through a sneezing fit as I typed, So it fit.)

The leaders of the military don't make those decisions. They make recommendations based on their knowledge and experience to civilian leaders, who use that information to make their decisions. If the civilian leadership decides that x is preferable to y even if y is safer for the military, the military does x, end of story. Sometimes x is a method ("don't torture"), sometimes it's a directive ("go into Iraq"), sometimes it's personnel ("integrate blacks into the military"); whether or not x is less safe is a concern, not an overriding factor. There are greater considerations and that's one of the reasons civilians make the call.

Furthermore, I've yet to see compelling evidence in this thread that women in combat roles makes the military less efficacious. And yes, I have read the thread. I remain unconvinced.

nitePhyyre wrote:Except, the thread is about opening up a new line of work for women in the military. Opening a new path for their chosen career. Not closing down the paths that are currently open to them.

I was arguing against the notion that we should not open that path, or delay opening that path.

nitePhyyre wrote:Is being crippled at birth a choice? Is being stupid at birth a choice? Are they things that will change over time? Are they fundamental to the position? Fun fact: the answer to all those is "no".

Now let me spell it out, because you are clearly incapable of reading between the lines: If you are claiming that it is unethical to discriminate against minorities, then it is unethical to discriminate against minorities. You don't get to say its OK to place restrictions on this minority but not that minority.

Actually, unlike the possession of a penis, being able-bodied and intelligent are fundamental requirements of the job. Owning a vagina does not stop someone from being an effective part of a fighting force in combat; being crippled or stupid does. I'm against baseless discrimination. The Supreme Court and the Constitution do not prevent all discrimination; they require that the state have a good reason for that discrimination. No such reason exists to keep women from combat positions in the military, but it does exist when you're talking about the crippled.

nitePhyyre wrote:

Malice wrote:

nitePhyyre wrote:"Why should I make their decisions?" Because they are the ones asking me for a job.

The military shouldn't answer to you because you're a civilian, but as a civilian applicants to the military should answer to you? The military is a tool commanded by civilians; anything else is flat-out dangerous. As such it is all our responsibilities to use them wisely and properly, which includes preventing unnecessary discrimination in their hiring practices.

If you personally were hiring people for a non-military job, would it be okay to turn women away solely because they're women? Because it's sure as shit not legal, at least when sex has nothing to do with the job requirements.

The "I" up there is some recruitment officer or commanding officer talking.

I apologize for the confusion, I thought "I" meant "nitePhyyre". My point stands, though--you need a rational basis for not hiring a qualified applicant because of her sex.

Malice wrote:

nitePhyyre wrote:How about letting them be separate but equal? Have all female units, and all male units. It beats separate and unequal during the transition, no?

Separate is inherently unequal.

Ever seen SDF-1 Macross? Sure its fiction, but they have a seperate but equal military. It worked well. Do you believe all-boy/all-girl schools are unethical?

Fictional evidence is not persuasive.

As for all-boy, all-girl schools, I'm against them, as I think part of the educational mandate is to see that children are socialized, a process that will obviously be incomplete if they're not in contact with the opposite sex. I don't think we should integrate them at the barrel of a gun, though.

nitePhyyre wrote:Ever seen SDF-1 Macross? Sure its fiction, but they have a seperate but equal military. It worked well.

1. In Dune, magic space feudalism led to the rise of great spiritual leaders. Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

2. SDF-1 Macross is the ship.

3. Let's assume you in fact mean the original Macross series. You can't mean the human military, given Miriya's position in Max and Rick(/Hikaru)'s squadron; while it was functionally quite segregated ("bridge bunnies" grumble grumble) there is no indication that this was due to outright regulations, and many indications that it was not. Therefore, I can only assume that you are referring to the Zentradi alien force, which was definitely and obviously "separate but equal".

4. The Zentradi force was largely segregated because of enforced sex-aversion. On multiple occasions, this led to the human fleet being able to rout the technologically and numerically superior battle-hardened armies(/batallions/GIANT SPACE FLEETS) by... broadcasting two people making out.

5. Multiple occasions.

6. Routed the entire goddamn army.

7. Pretty significant to the plot. You couldn't have missed it.

8. So basically their segregation was due to massive social/psychological conditioning and a deep-seated fear of any sort of sexual fraternization or especially reproduction, which was introduced into their species as a means of control.

9. This makes their situation slightly dissimilar to America's military.

10. This also implies that the whole segregation thing was part of their main weakness. The ones who didn't defect kinda catastrophically lost.

11. But yeah, up until they met a foe who confronted them with ~kissing~ they were pretty good drones. I say "drones" instead of "military force" because of the aforementioned being-under-the-control-of-another-race thing. Kinda significant.

12. After that, they... pretty much integrate with humans?

13. So yeah, worked really well. Whole point of the series was how well that worked.

14. Your example is not only invalidated by being fictional, nor only by being functionally inapplicable in several vital ways to our current civilization, but it also either fails to support or outright refutes what you are intending to prove, depending on how you choose to interpret it.

8. So basically their segregation was due to massive social/psychological conditioning and a deep-seated fear of any sort of sexual fraternization or especially reproduction, which was introduced into their species as a means of control.

9. This makes their situation slightly dissimilar to America's military.

I dunno, that actually sounds pretty close to correct.

"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!""I am just about to be brilliant!"

General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.